ERIC EJ1143517: Impact of Smartphone Based Activities on EFL Students' Engagement

2017·0.25 MB·English

by  ERIC

English Language Teaching; Vol. 10, No. 6; 2017
ISSN 1916-4742 E-ISSN 1916-4750
Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education
Impact of Smartphone Based Activities on EFL Students’ Engagement
Pir Suhail Ahmed Sarhandi1, Ayman Bajnaid2 & Tariq Elyas1
1 English Language Institute, King Abdul Aziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
2 Department of Communication, Faculty of Communication and Media, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah,
Saudi Arabia
Correspondence: Pir Suhail Ahmed Sarhandi, English Language Institute, King Abdul Aziz University, Jeddah,
Saudi Arabia. Tel: [phone]. E-mail: [email protected]

Received: March 1, 2017 Accepted: May 20, 2017 Online Published: May 26, 2017
doi: 10.5539/elt.v10n6p103 URL: http://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v10n6p103

Abstract
Teachers all over the world strive to keep their students engaged, and research has shown that task engagement
can be elevated by utilising technology to complete classroom activities. Reasons suggested for this is that
technology’s alignment with students’ interests, as well as the stimulatingly transformative effect that technology
can have on activities. Due to current students’ preferences, authors now encourage incorporating mobile phones
into the classroom, claiming that it will improve task engagement. However, this has not been empirically
proven. Therefore, this mixed method quasi experimental study examined whether two groups completing
identical activities, where one group using their smartphones, would have any difference in their engagement
with the given activities. The results indicated that a statistically significant difference in the initiation times and
distraction between experimental and control settings. Although no significant emotional difference was
observed between the groups, the students themselves indicated a significant difference in their emotional
attitude towards smartphone activities as compared to paper-based ones. The smartphone group managed to
engage with activities, thereby overcoming many factors which affected the control groups’ engagement levels.
Keywords: EFL, mobile learning, student engagement, SAMR, teaching technology
1. Introduction
One of the primary concerns of teachers worldwide is to ensure that students are engaged during their lessons
(Ahlfeldt, Mehta, & Sellnow, 2005; Harmer, 2007; Kearney, 2013; Junior, 2015). Endeavouring to further engage
the current generation of students, technology has been successfully integrated into the curriculum of many
institutions worldwide. The heightened engagement which has been reported from these establishments has been
attributed to the “aesthetic and sensory appeal, feedback, novelty, interactivity, perceived control and time,
awareness, motivation, interest, and affect” (O’Brien & Toms, 2008, p. 23) which technologically transformed
activities are often characterised. But for many reasons, not all contexts easily permit for such transformed
activities, such as the high stakes intensive English as a Foreign Language (EFL) pre-university preparatory year
programme (PYP) reported in this paper, where teachers are bound by a prescribed course book from which its
students are examined in order to gain entrance to their desired university faculties. Deviation too far from this
core text’s activities (hereafter referred to as paper-based activities), could therefore involve potentially
hazardous consequences for the students, although the incorporation of technology is enticing due to the
increases in student engagement reported. Acknowledging the above, an empirical study of the engagement of
two groups of the referred to PYP students was undertaken, one of whom completed the paper-based EFL
activities in their course book, whilst the others undertook identical activities but utilising their mobile phones.
This paper reports the findings of that study, which will be preceded by outlining the theoretical basis for the
research undertaken, including a definition of engagement and its measurement, followed by a review of the
literature related to engagement utilising technology, and specifically, mobile technology.
2 Literature Review
2.1 Definition of Student Engagement
No agreement has been reached concerning the definition and measurement of student engagement (Shepard,
2000; Chapman, 2003; Fredricks, Blumenfeld, & Paris, 2004; Atweh, Bland, Carrington, & Cavanagh, 2008;
Parsons & Taylor, 2011; Kearney, 2013; Whitton & Moseley, 2014), but through extensive reviews of the
103
elt.ccsenet.org English Language Teaching Vol. 10, No. 6; 2017
literature, several authors have concluded that this disparity is because the phrase is employed in reference to
two related contexts (see Chapman, 2003, Fredricks et al., 2004; Parsons & Taylor, 2011 and Whitton & Moseley,
2014). The first is a more comprehensive usage of the term student engagement referring to the amount of time
and efforts students invest in their learning [generally] and other educationally focused activities (National
Survey of Student Engagement, 2014), referred to more explicably as school engagement (Fredricks et al., 2004;
Jimerson, Campos, & Greif, 2003). Secondly, and importantly for this research, is a narrower usage of the term
referring to the engagement a student has with a specific learning activity undertaken in the classroom, which we
will refer to as task engagement. In describing how this type of engagement is evidenced, the seminal work of
Skinner & Belmont (1993) states, “[c]hildren who are engaged show sustained behavioural involvement in
learning activities accompanied by positive emotional tone. They… initiate action when given the
opportunity, and exert intense effort and concentration in the implementation of learning tasks; they show
generally positive emotions during on-going action, including enthusiasm, optimism, curiosity, and interest” (p.
572, emphasis added). From this, task engagement can be deconstructed into three realisations: 1) behavioural,
which can be observed through a) initiation of the task, and b) sustained involvement in the activity, 2) cognitive,
which includes concentration, and 3) generally positive emotions. This three strand interpretation has been
accepted by the majority of those reporting on task engagement (see for example Chapman, 2003; Jimerson et al.,
2003; Fredricks et al., 2004; Appleton, Christenson, Kim, & Reschly, 2006; Lutz, Guthrie, & Davis, 2006;
Parsons & Taylor, 2011; Lee, 2012; Marks et al., 2013; Whitton & Moseley, 2014), even though, for various
motivations, not all components are always measured (for example Skinner and Belmont (1993) themselves only
measured behavioural and emotional engagement).
Further exploration of the literature reveals that task engagement is reported as existing upon on a continuum,
ranging from intense behavioural, cognitive and emotional engagement, commonly referred to as “flow” (see the
seminal work of Csikszentmihalyi, 1990), which culminates in a sensory loss of time and place (Csikszentmihalyi,
1990), through to a more “superficial engagement” (Whitton & Moseley, 2014, p. 442) where an actor may be
just behaviourally “going through the motions” (Whitton & Moseley, 2014). In the latter, such limited
engagement can often regresses into disengagement, which is frequently labelled as “disaffection” (see Skinner &
Belmont, 1993; Skinner, Kindermann, Connell, & Wellborn, 2009; Parsons & Taylor, 2011; Kearney, 2013),
resulting in a student becoming behaviourally “distracted” (Reeve, Jang, Carrell, Jeon, & Barch, 2004, p. 148)
from the activity, and possibly accompanied by negative emotions such as boredom and anger (Skinner & Belmont,
1993).
2.2 Engaging Students
Various factors are advocated for instructors attempting to foster student task engagement (see Claxton, 2007;
Parsons & Taylor, 2011 for a general discussion of these considerations, and Lee, 2012 and Junior, 2015 for
specific reference to EFL). Of significance to this study is that teachers are advised to employ a variety of
activities (Junior, 2015), while accommodating the learners’ interests and preferences (Hall, 2011). Enacting both
considerations, and therefore acknowledging the technological upbringing of the current generation many of
whom have grown up surrounded by digital technologies (Prensky & Berry, 2001), numerous authors suggest the
integration of technology into classroom activities as an aid to improving task engagement (Manuguerra &
Petocz, 2011, Parsons & Taylor, 2011). Through incorporating technology, activities can be transformed
(O’Brien & Toms, 2008) for example by incorporating extra stimuli such multi-media, thereby facilitating task
engagement in ways which were previously difficult to achieve (Kearsley & Shneiderman 1999 quoted in
Marshall, 2007; Ramaley & Zia, 2005 quoted in Parsons & Taylor, 2011). But, as noted in the introduction, due
to the rigid curriculums in certain high stakes contexts, not all teachers have the freedom to devise such
stimulating activities, and may further be limited by time or expertise, and this is arguably so in the EFL context
studied in this article.
2.3 Mobile Phones and Engagement
Regarding student interests, no technology is currently as ubiquitous as the mobile phone (Williams & Pence,
2011), and, in certain contexts, more specifically the smartphone. Due to this, many authors recommend their
incorporation into the classroom to assist in promoting student engagement (for example Jones, Issroff, &
Scanlon, 2007 and Project Tomorrow, 2010), even though empirical data concerning the effect of mobile
technology upon task engagement is negligible. This is witnessed, for example, in the EFL directed literature,
where, despite a plethora of studies focussing on a variety of mobile phone applications and classroom uses (for an
overview see the excellent article of Burston (2013) who reviewed c. 300 articles), no study has specifically
measured student task engagement. Beyond EFL, until now, the only investigation to attempt such a quantification
is reported by the researchers McPhee, Marks, & Marks (2013) and Marks et al., (2013) where, through a system
104
elt.ccsenet.org English Language Teaching Vol. 10, No. 6; 2017
of observations, the authors recorded significant differences in the overall (p = 0.014), cognitive (p = 0.004) and
emotional (p = 0.012) engagement of primary school students (n = 28) who undertook activities using iPads as
compared to control settings (paper-based activities). No significant difference was noted in behavioural
engagement (p = 0.654). However, despite mentioning in McPhee et al. (2013) that the teachers used “identical
lessons based upon the experiences and outcomes” (p. 445), the researchers conversely mention in Marks et al.,
(2013) that, "[i]n this study, the lessons using iPad or not were not designed to be exactly alike” (p. 12). This latter
statement is accurate, as witnessed by the additional outcomes documented for the iPad activities (see Marks et al.,
2013, p. 7-8 for a record of the variant outcomes for experimental and control settings). In illustration of this
disparity, the outcome stating “I can digitally create, capture and manipulate sounds, text and images to
communicate experiences, ideas and information in creative and engaging ways” (Marks et al., 2013, p. 8), which
was actualised by the experimental students adding “atmospheric tracks” to their work (Marks et al., 2013, p. 8),
was not present as an outcome for the paper-based activity, as it could not be realised without the use of technology.
This research is therefore an example of the capabilities afforded by technology in transforming activities in ways
otherwise impossible in traditional non-technological settings, and the positive effect that this can have on student
task engagement, and consequently, bolsters previous research in this field. But what the data in this research does
not clarify, nor indeed any empirical study concerning student engagement, is whether students’ behavioural,
emotional and cognitive engagement would be increased if the activity and outcomes were precisely the same,
with the only variable changed being the use of technology. Possibly in recognition of this, the researchers
themselves noted that “[a]n alternative methodology would be to study virtually duplicate lessons e.g. writing an
essay or completing arithmetic on the iPad versus in a jotter” (Marks et al., 2013, p. 12). Such a study would
positively add to the growing literature on student engagement.
2.4 This Project
Based upon the above discussion, this project examined whether substituting paper-based EFL activities with
smartphones (see Puentedura, 2010, for an understanding of the difference between substitution and
transformation with mobile technology) increased student task engagement during those activities, as measured
by 1) behavioural engagement, as indicated by 1a) whether students initiate the activity when given the
opportunity, and 1b) whether students have sustained behavioural involvement, and 2) emotional engagement, or
whether they display generally positive emotions.
3. Methodology
Due to the aims of this research, two questionnaires, a i) teachers’ activity journal, and a ii) students’ post study
questionnaire, both incorporating quantitative and qualitative research methods were adopted.
3.1 Participants
The participants in this study were two teachers, and 50 Saudi males, aged between 19 and 21 years old, and
studying on an EFL PYP at a single sex university in Saudi Arabia. The students were all graded as intermediate
level of English, and were randomly mixed into a control group, who would undertake certain paper-based
activities from their course book, and an experimental group, who would undertake the same activities but using
their smartphones.
3.2 Research Instruments and Operationalization of Task Engagement
3.2.1 Teacher’s Activity Journal
In task engagement investigations, the main modes for gathering data are: a) teachers’ observations, b) external
observers or c) students’ questionnaires (see Chapman, 2003 and Parsons & Taylor, 2011 for a discussion of this
topic). The principal mode adopted in our study were teachers’ observations for reasons of data validity and
robustness, as external observers may have affected the students’ task engagement thereby invalidating the data,
and even though a students’ questionnaire was used, it was not adopted as the main instrument as previous
research mentioned that “the validity of the data yielded by these measures will vary considerably with students’
abilities to accurately assess their own cognitions, behaviours, and affective responses” (Assor & Connell (1992)
quoted in Chapman, 2003, p. 5), also implying that yielded data may be insufficiently robust.
As a final point, McPhee, Marks & Marks' (2013, p. 444), who adopted external observers, commented that: “[a]
teacher involved in teaching a class will not be able to devote their entire attention to observing”, but due to our
research design, the teachers were able to make accurate observations quickly and easily, as will be seen from
the following discussion.

105
elt.ccsenet.org English Language Teaching Vol. 10, No. 6; 2017
3.2.1.1 Operationalization of Behavioural Engagement
a) Initiation times
Gleaned from the seminal work of Skinner and Belmont (1993), and novel to our research, the teachers recorded
in their journals the time taken in seconds, between their command for the students to commence a task and the
students’ actual initiation of that activity.
b) Sustained behavioural involvement
This factor was measured through teachers indicating on a Likert scale whether 1) all, 2) most, 3) some or 4)
none of the students became distracted after task initiation, as the students not distracted had conversely
maintained their ‘sustained behavioural involvement’.
As well as the quantitative part the research instrument also incorporated a qualitative ‘comments’ section
allowing the teachers to elaborate, clarify and illustrate (Dornyei, 2007; Sealey, 2010) regarding this factor.
Previous research successfully operationalized behavioural engagement through calculating ‘time on task’ (e.g.
Fisher, 1981; Brophy, 1983 and McIntyre, Copenhaver, Byrd, & Norris, 1983), but this measure was not adopted
in our study because it requires ‘one on one’ observation, which would be too intrusive in the context under
examination.
3.2.1.2 Operationalization of Emotional Engagement
Regarding this constituent of task engagement, Skinner & Belmont (1993, p. 571) state that engaged students
“show generally positive emotions during ongoing action, including enthusiasm, optimism, curiosity, and
interest”. However, for this study, neutral behaviour with no visible display of any negative emotions was
considered as acceptable, as requiring students to display “enthusiasm, optimism, curiosity, and interest” while
undertaking short EFL activities such as comprehension exercises was regarded as unduly oppressive. Therefore,
teachers were asked to indicate on a Likert scale whether 1) all, 2) most, 3) some or 4) none of the students
displayed any negative emotions during the activity under observation, as students not exhibiting negative
behaviour could conversely be considered as still “generally positive”.
Qualitative data for this derivation of engagement was collected via a ‘comments’ section in the teachers’ activity
journal and supporting data gathered from the students’ post study questionnaire.
3.2.2 Students’ Post Study Questionnaire
As well as gathering bio-data of the students, the student’s post study questionnaire collected quantitative and
qualitative data from the experimental group regarding the emotions they felt when informed that they would be
undertaking a) a paper-based activity, and b) a smartphone activity.
In the quantitative section, it was deemed ambiguous to ask the students if they felt “generally positive
emotions”, therefore, similar to the emotion related question in the teachers’ activity journal (see 3.2.1.2),
students were asked to indicate on a Likert scale their response to the following statement: ‘I sometimes feel
annoyed when the teacher says we will do an exercise on the mobile phone’, and a comparable statement for the
paper-based activities. It was believed that all other negative emotions, such as boredom or apathy, would
translate into some level of ‘annoyance’ when the students were requested to perform an activity. Therefore,
feeling ‘annoyed’ would encompass all other negative emotions, and therefore indicate a loss of “generally
positive emotions”.
It should be noted that data provided by the students (n = 19) regarding their emotions was judged as being
robust, as the treatments were numerous, and so feelings should be easily recalled.
3.3 Cognitive Engagement
Even though cognitive engagement is considered as an indicator of task engagement, it was not measured in this
study as it was impossible for the teachers to reliably comment in its regard, and gathering data from students
would require intensive student questioning following each treatment session, and was therefore prohibited in
our context. As Chapman (2003, p. 3) comments, no research instrument “can comprehensively assess student
engagement on all of the construct dimensions listed”.
However, there is an assumption that if the students were behaviourally engaged in an activity, this would
indicate some level of cognitive engagement, even if it was superficial.

106
elt.ccsenet.org English Language Teaching Vol. 10, No. 6; 2017
3.4 Controlling the Variables
In order to ensure that no confounding variables invalidated the data gathered, the following considerations were
made:
a) Student sampling: Students were of the same nationality, age and proficiency level, which ensured that they
were from the same population.
b) Teacher selection: Teachers were selected based on their identical ethnic and national background
(Pakistani origin with Canadian nationalities), nearly identical age, academic and professional background
(masters, CELTA, and approximately ten years EFL experience). Possible candidate teachers were also
interviewed to ensure their enthusiasm for this research.
c) Task design: Smartphone tasks were a pure substitution for the paper-based task in the students’ course
book which was achieved by carefully selecting easily substituted activities, such as ‘gap fill’, ‘multiple choice’
and ‘short answer’, and copying their text verbatim into certain apps such as Whatsapp and Socrative, while
strictly avoiding all other functionality offered by such apps. Therefore, the only difference between the groups
is that students would write in the control group, and type on their smartphones in the experimental group.
d) Instructions were pre-prepared, standardised and read verbatim by the teachers: To ensure that there was no
difference in the giving of instructions between the two teachers, which may have different effects on the
students’ engagement, nearly identical instructions were composed for both teachers, which they read verbatim
to the students. Following the instructions, an open class example was completed and ‘instruction checking
questions’ were asked to ensure student comprehension.
e) Ensuring no premature initiation of activities: During the instructions, teachers ensured student attention
was maintained throughout, and that no students prematurely started activities. Following the instructions
teachers always said: “OK. Everyone start”, and thereafter measured initiation times.
3.5 Pilot Study
In order to, a) detect any flaws in the research instrument (Rasinger 2013, p. 72), b) confirm that quantitative
results were standardised between teachers, c) ensure functioning technology, and d) overcome any excitement
phase of using technology, which may have been a confounding variable; a one week observed pilot study was
undertaken. By the end of the pilot study, the observers and teachers achieved 100% agreement in the Likert
scale observations, and more than 90% agreement in the initiation times.
3.6 The Study
The actual study lasted two weeks and consisted of a total of nineteen treatments. Because of the high stakes
nature of the course, and the possible negative effect on the grades of the participating students, the study could
not continue longer than the mid-module exam, which corresponded with the third week of a five week module.
The quantitative data was descriptively and inferentially analysed using a statistical program called R Studio,
while the qualitative data was considered using descriptive and thematic analysis.
4 Results
This section contains a comprehensive delineation of the quantitative and qualitative data gathered from the two
research instruments.
4.1 Behavioural Engagement
4.1.1 Initiation Times
The times taken in seconds, between the experimental and control teachers’ instructions to commence a
particular activity, and the students actually starting that activity are displayed in Figure 1. This data is taken
from the teachers’ activity journals.

107
elt.ccsenet.org English Language Teaching Vol. 10, No. 6; 2017

Figure 1. Initiation times in seconds over all treatment sessions

Notably from Figure 1 is that the experiment group started their smartphone tasks immediately upon request, as
compared to the control group who took a minimum of 10 seconds to initiate exactly the same tasks. An
independent sample T-Test affirmed that the initiation times of the experimental group (n= 19, M=0.00, SD= 0.00)
were significantly different from the initiation times of the control group (n= 19, M=14.21, SD=2.78); t (18) =
-22.28, p < 0.001.
Also, noticeable from Figure 1 is the downward trend in the initiation times of the control group over time. A
Mann Whitney U Test established that week 2 (M= 12.90, SD= 2.88) initiation time was significantly faster than
week 1 (M= 15.67, SD= 1.87); w= 75, p= 0.01. However, a further Mann- Whitney U Test indicating that the
control group (M= 12.90, SD= 2.88) were still significantly slower in week 2 than the experiment group (M=
0.00, SD= 0.00) in that week; w= 0, p= <0.01.
4.1.2 Sustained Behavioural Involvement
Data regarding student’ sustained behavioural involvement was both quantitative and qualitative from the
teachers’ activity journal.
4.1.2.1 Teachers’ Activity Journal: Quantitative Data
Following each treatment session, teachers were asked to indicate on a Likert scale whether students had been
distracted during the task, and the results are displayed in Figure 2.

108
elt.ccsenet.org English Language Teaching Vol. 10, No. 6; 2017

Figure 2. Teachers’ quantification of distracted students during treatment activities

It is interesting to note that none of the students in the experiment group were distracted while undertaking tasks
using their smartphones, as compared to the control group, where some of the students were distracted by factors
outside the task in 16/ 19 of the treatment sessions. A Fisher's exact test revealed that the experimental and
control groups significantly differed by distraction (n= 38), p < 0.001.
4.1.2.2 Teachers’ Activity Journal: Qualitative Data
Qualitative data from the teachers’ activity journal regarding behavioural engagement is displayed in Table 1.

109
elt.ccsenet.org English Language Teaching Vol. 10, No. 6; 2017
Table 1. Teachers’ comments from teachers’ activity journal regarding behaviour
Positive Comments Negative Comments
p * Fully involved.
u
ro Week 1
G
al * There was a learning curve initially but at * After activity on mobile phone, I had
nt
e the end of week 2, the investment seemed trouble to get students back on the book.
m
ri paying itself back in increased student
e
p motivation and engagement.
Ex Week 2
* 1/8 pairs were comparatively less active
in mutual interaction.
* A few students seemed tired and sleepy.
Week 1
* A few students did not exert much and got
busy with cell phones.
p
ou
r
G
ol * Ss were fresh and very attentive. * 2/19 ss showed distraction.
r
nt * Task was done by ss very enthusiastically. * 5/19 ss were distracted as they had used
o
C
books.
Week 2 * Ss were tired and motivation level had
reduced due to the given topic in the book.
* The activity was distracting as it came at
the end of the lesson.

Interesting from Table 1, are the explanations suggested for the control groups’ distraction, which are the topics
in the book because of the late temporal occurrence of the activity and pre-completed student course books. In
4.2.3 below, similar comments are made regarding students’ negative emotions.
The lack of comments concerning distraction in the experiment group corresponds with the quantitative data
recorded in 4.1.2.1.
4.2 Emotional Engagement: Generally Positive Motions
Data regarding the students’ emotions was both quantitative and qualitative and gathered in the teachers’ activity
journal, and the students’ post study questionnaire.
4.2.1 Teachers’ Activity Journal: Quantitative data
Following each treatment session, teachers were asked to indicate on a Likert scale the quantity of students that
displayed negative emotions, the results of which are displayed in Figure 3.
110
elt.ccsenet.org English Language Teaching Vol. 10, No. 6; 2017

Figure 3. Teachers’ quantification of students displaying negative emotions during treatment sessions

Figure 3 shows that a greater number of students displayed negative emotions in the control group over the
course of the two weeks, however, a Fisher's exact test revealed that the difference between the two groups was
not statistically significant (n= 38), p= 0.099, which indicates that the elevated number of student’s exhibiting
negative emotions in the control group was just a tendency.
4.2.2 Students’ Post Study Questionnaire: Quantitative Data
The students in the experimental group were asked to indicate on a Likert scale whether they felt annoyed when
requested to undertake an activity using their smartphone, and similarly regarding paper-based activities. The
results are displayed in Figure 4.

Figure 4. Experimental group students’ quantification of whether they felt annoyed when asked to perform a
smartphone/ paper-based activity

Figure 4 illustrates that the experimental group students felt annoyed more often when instructed to commence
111
elt.ccsenet.org English Language Teaching Vol. 10, No. 6; 2017
paper-based activities, and a Fisher's exact test revealed that this escalation is significant (n= 26), p= 0.005,
which conversely denotes that students had “generally positive emotions” significantly more during smartphone
activities.
4.2.3 Teachers’ Activity Journal: Qualitative Data

Table 2. Teachers’ comments from the teachers’ activity journal regarding students’ emotions
Positive Comments Negative Comments
* Students found activity interesting.
ental p Week 1 * Students enjoyed using their phones
mu because of easy access to the material.
o
eriGr
p * One student even complained about the
x Week 2
E length of the activity.
* Because of the first session of the day, ss * Ss were a bit tired and that showed a bit of
were active. negativity.
* Ss worked in a relaxed mood; smiles were
Week 1 observed.
* The response was very enthusiastic.
p
u * Groups worked in a very comfortable
o
Gr environment.
ol
r * Task was done by ss very enthusiastically. * Motivation was considerable lost as the
nt
o stage of mastering pronunciation arrived.
C
* Due to a lengthy text in a previous reading
Week 2 activity, ss were tired and they did not
follow the instructions clearly.
* A few students did not pay attention to the
instruction and fell a prey to negativity.

Similar to data regarding students’ behaviour (see 4.1.2.2), Table 2 includes numerous suggestions proffered in
explanation of the students’ negative emotions, which include activity length, feeling tired and the effect of
previous activities.
The absence of data in certain segments of Table 2 does not necessarily indicate a lack of observed emotions
during that time period, but merely indicates a deficiency of teachers’ comments.
4.2.4 Students’ Post Study Questionnaire: Qualitative Data
Finally, students in the experimental group were asked to record what emotions they experienced while
undertaking smartphone and paper-based tasks. Results and comment frequency are displayed in Table 3.
112